4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
5.  In 1975 a plot of land located in Warsaw, owned by the applicant's mother, was expropriated for the purpose of building an apartment block. However, the buildings were constructed only on a part of the plot and the rest remained unused.
6.  On 5 July 1992 the applicant's father and his brother lodged an application for restitution of the expropriated land with the Warsaw District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) under section 69 of the Law of 29 April 1985 on the Land Administration and Expropriation (Ustawa o gospodarce gruntami i wywłaszczaniu nieruchomości). This section stipulated that the former owner (or his legal successor) of the expropriated property could lodge an application for restitution provided that the property no longer served a purpose specified in the expropriation decision. Subsequently, the applicant lodged another application for restitution of the property.
7.  The applicant's mother died and on 23 May 1994 the Warsaw District Court declared the applicant and his brother to be her only heirs.
8.  The authorities failed to take any steps until 1994 when they requested information from several other institutions as to the legal situation of the property. It appears that the applicant repeatedly requested information about the course of the proceedings.
9.  In 1995 the Warsaw‑Bemowo Municipal Office (Urząd Gminy) informed the applicant that the 1975 decision on expropriation was still in force and was final.
10.  On 25 January 1996 the Head of the Warsaw District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) stayed the proceedings and informed the applicant that he could institute another set of proceedings concerning the division of the property in question.
11.  Subsequently, the applicant instituted such proceedings in which he sought to divide the expropriated property. It appears that the first decision in this set of proceedings was given on 23 June 1998 dismissing the request. Finally, on 30 September 1998 the Warsaw Self‑Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) discontinued the proceedings.
12.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant requested the resumption of the proceedings concerning restitution of the property.
13.  On 7 October 1999 the Mayor of the Warsaw District (Starosta Powiatu Warszawskiego) resumed the proceedings and on the same date he discontinued them considering that the matter was res judicata.
14.  The applicant appealed.
15.  On 18 November 1999 the Warsaw Self‑Government Board of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the decision and remitted the case.
16.  Since the Mayor failed to take any decision the applicant lodged on 1 February 2001 a complaint about his inactivity with the Warsaw Self‑Government Board of Appeal. The Board failed to take any action. On 30 January 2002 the applicant complained about the inactivity of both authorities to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).
17.  On 10 June 2002 the Mayor of the Warsaw District gave a decision in which it allowed the applicant's action and returned to him and to his brother the property in question.
18.  On 18 June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court examined the applicant's complaint about the inactivity of the administrative authorities and dismissed it, inter alia, in view of the Mayor's decision of 10 June 2002.
19.  The Warsaw‑Bemowo Mayor (Burmistrz) lodged an appeal against the decision of 10 June 2002 with the Mazowiecki Governor (Wojewoda Mazowiecki).
20.  On 11 October 2002 the Mazowiecki Governor allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the Warsaw‑Bemowo Mayor.
21.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision, but on 19 March 2004 the Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) dismissed it. The applicant's cassation appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 26 October 2005.
22.  In view of the length of the proceedings before the administrative courts, on 7 June 2004, the applicant made a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act. On 30 September 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his complaint finding that the length of the proceedings before it did not exceed a reasonable time.
23.  The case is pending before the Warsaw‑Bemowo Mayor.